The Daily Alaska Empire

AIR VS. NAVY
A table-beating, word-slinging row that rattled the window panes of the House Appropriations Committee took place last week over squeezing money out of the Army and Navy. Part of the row was over the old question of more naval vessels or more airplanes.
The uproar started when Chairman Clarence Cannon of Missouri upbraided his subcommittee for giving the armed service half a billion dollars more than President Truman asked for.
"This is the worst bill that has come from a subcommittee this session," thundered Chairman Cannon. "It's terrible and ought to be recommitted.
"At least $750,000,000 of this spending should be cut out of the bill. It's preposterous to give the Navy all that money so that admirals who still think they're fighting the Spanish-American war can build outdated warships at a time when air power is all-important."
This brought a hot retort from chunky subcommittee member Albert Engel, Republican of Michigan. "I resent the accusation," he stormed, beating the table. "I've always been a strong air-power man and this bill does not discriminate against the Air Force.
"You say the bill should be cut," continued the Michigan Republican. Well, I won't take the responsibility for cutting the defense program at a time like this. Furthermore, I'm standing by my subcommittee. If I didn't think it was doing a good job, I would resign."
NEED FOR SUBMARINES
Young Bob Sikes of Florida, a Democrat, chimed in:
"I have supported cuts, sometimes at the expense of safety, in an effort to achieve economy in this measure. I even proposed cuts that you yourself vetoed, Mr. Chairman. But while I'm for an adequate Air Force, you cannot possibly transport all the men and tonnage we need in time of war by air alone. There isn't enough gasoline in the country, even if we had the planes. And the Air Force can't hold places that have been taken. That takes ground troops fighting in the mud.
"Also, the Air Force cannot carry on effective anti-submarine warfare. That takes ships."
Cannon re-entered the argument with a charge that the subcommittee hadn't properly coordinated the spending of the three services to prevent overlapping expenses.
"We supposedly unified the three services for greater efficiency and economy," he snapped sarcastically. "We were going to save the taxpayers' money. This bill doesn't look like we meant what we said. To read it, you'd never know there was a unification program."
"Just a minute—just a minute," shouted Democrat Harry Sheppard of California. "You're in a mighty poor position to be making these accusations. You sat with the subcommittee during the markup of the bill and voted on it. Why did you wait until now, when we are ready to report the bill, to start beefing? It seems mighty strange to me."
Cannon finally agreed to withhold his threatened motion to recommit the bill and called for a vote to report it.
"There's nothing else I can do at this stage," he explained, "but I still don't like the bill."
Note—Privately many Congressmen agree with Representative Cannon that a lot of water can be cut from the Armed Forces budget. For instance, cagey Speaker Sam Rayburn recently asked the Army to take over recreation facilities at Texoma Lake, a flood control project in his district now run by the Interior Department. Reason: The Army can spend plenty of money on recreation, while the Interior Department's budget is pruned to the bone.